Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T2286 and T2299 - 20 April

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.2286 of 1990

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TASMANIAN CONFEDERATION OF INDUSTRIES TO VARY THE PRINTERS AWARD - Order No. 2 of 1990 and Order No. 1 of 1990 

   
 

RE: SUPERANNUATION EXEMPTIONS

   
 

and

   

T.2299 of 1990

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE PRINTING AND ALLIED TRADES EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA TO VARY THE PRINTERS AWARD

   
 

RE: SUPERANNUATION EXEMPTIONS

   

COMMISSIONER P A IMLACH

HOBART, 20 April 1990

   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   

APPEARANCES:

   

For the Printing and Allied Trades Employers' Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Region

- Mr J Hargrave

   

For the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch

- Mr D Fry

   
   

For the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries

- Mr M Setori with
  Mr S Clues

   

DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:

 

8 February 1990

 

Matter T No. 2286 of 1990 was completed by an interim decision dated 16 March 1990.

Matter T No. 2299 of 1990, a similar application by The Printing and Allied Trades Employers' Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Region to vary the Printers Award in respect to a number of exemptions from contributing to the occupational superannuation funds specified in clause 22 of that award, is now able to be completed as well.

Mr J Hargrave, appearing for The Printing and Allied Trades Employers' Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Region, in matter T.2299 of 1990, sought exemptions for Moore Business Systems Australia Ltd, five companies associated with the Advocate Newspaper, A.P.M. Containers Launceston and Spicers Paper Limited, nominating respectively the Moore Staff Superannuation Plan, the Harris & Company Superannuation Fund, the AMP Packaging Superannuation Plan and the James Hardie Securiplan as alternate funds. At the hearing, Mr Hargraves was unable to produce documentary evidence of the Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Commission's authorisations for these funds nor alternatively of the Federal Industrial Relations Commission decisions endorsing the funds mentioned, but he has since forwarded the necessary papers.

Mr Fry, who had initially raised the matter of the documentary evidence, supported Mr Hargrave's submissions and, subject to the production of the appropriate papers by Mr Hargraves, confirmed the FCU's agreement to the exemptions sought.

As indicated at the end of the hearing there are no hindrances to the granting of the exemptions claimed. All requirements having been met and the union's agreement having been given, I, therefore, endorse the applications.

The operative date for this decision will be 1 February 1990.

An order is attached.

 

P A Imlach
COMMISSIONER